There is little doubt that anti-equality activists will try to spin today’s ruling by Judge Julie Spector in the King County Superior Court this morning, but if I were them I would be very concerned. Her ruling is full of evidence findings of fraud by Protect Marriage Washington, the group that collected signatures for referendum 71. Allow me to point out some highlights from today’s ruling for you.

The judge addressed the timing of voter registration and the law that requires voters to register prior to signing the petition.

The Secretary of State specifically instructed staff to accept signatures regardless of voter registration date. As a result, a number of signatures were accepted from voters who were not registered at the time they signed the petitions. Some had registered after the R-71 petitions were filed.

…

The Court recognizes the concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding the validity of a significant number of petitions and signatures in this case.

The Secretary of State concedes that he instructed the staff to accept signatures of voters who were not registered when they signed the petition. The court notes that the plain language of the Washington State Constitution and the Revised Code of Washington requires voters to be registered before signing. While it may be common practice for individuals to register simultaneously with signing referendum petitions, and it may even be good policy, that does not mean that the practice is in accordance with Washington law.

Judge Spector addressed the Secretary of State’s willingness to allow petitions without the petition gatherer’s signature on the affidavit on the back of the petition as required by law.

Based on the statute’s plain language and the legislative history, this essentially renders the declaration requirement meaningless.

Furthermore, neither the Secretary of State or PMW/INtervenor has addressed the plaintiffs allegations of fraud whereby individuals were allegedly deceived into signing the petitions. Specifically, there are allegations that signature-gatherers told some individuals that the referendum would protect domestic partnerships when in fact just the opposite was true. In addition, the highlights at the top of the petitions contain apparent falsehoods, hyperbole, and unsubstantiated claims.

The required signature-gatherer’s declarations swears that the individuals who signed the petition did so “knowingly.” It is unclear whether a signature-gatherer can swear that an individual signer has signed the petition “knowingly” when the signature-gatherer has allegedly misrepresented the contents of the petition. Neither the Secretary of State nor PMW/Intervenor has answered this question.

The Judge summarized,

In summary, under Washington case law it is unclear whether there are any limits to the Secretary of State’s discretion as long as he has chosen to accept petitions rather than reject them.

Finally, under Shrempp and Community Care Coalition, supra, this court has no authority to prevent the Secretary of State from accepting these petitions in light of their questionable validity. Only after certification can opponents of a referendum challenge it in court , and then only in compliance with RCW 29A.72.240. Therefore, any challenge to the Secretary of State’s certification of a referendum must be brought in Superior Court in Thurston County within five days.

Does that look like a win for anti-equality activists do you? I certainly don’t think so.